Draft Army Handbook Controversy

This is a discussion on Draft Army Handbook Controversy within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Here: Draft Army Handbook Wades Into Divisive Afghan Issue - WSJ.com
The proposed Army handbook suggests that Western ignorance of Afghan culture, not Taliban infiltration, ...

Draft Army Handbook Controversy

The proposed Army handbook suggests that Western ignorance of Afghan culture, not Taliban infiltration, has helped drive the recent spike in deadly attacks by Afghan soldiers against the coalition forces.

I am at a loss to understand this, but it really irritates the nitswickenfrudenhaffen out of me. Am I wrong? Is this stupid PC and I should scream? Is this analogous to blaming the rape victim for their carriage or deportment?

I would like to hear what the great folks here think of the premise of the Draft Handbook.

But it has drawn criticism from U.S. Marine Gen. John Allen, the top military commander in Afghanistan, who aides said hasn't—and wouldn't—endorse the manual as written. Gen. Allen also rejected a proposed foreword that Army officials drafted in his name.

"Gen. Allen did not author, nor does he intend to provide, a foreword," said Col. Tom Collins, a spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan. "He does not approve of its contents."

Some of this just reads like some type of freshman level "Alternative Dispute Resolution" bologna spewed by some pot-smoking teary eyed moron born on the dark side of the moon. I swear, I shall weep.

The proposed handbook embraces a hotly debated theory that American cultural ignorance has sparked many so-called insider attacks—more than three dozen of which have claimed the lives of some 63 members of the U.S.-led coalition this year. The rise in insider attacks has created one of the biggest threats to American plans to end its major combat missions in Afghanistan next year and transfer full security control to Afghan forces in 2014.

I am just beside myself about this, and have been consumed about this issue all day while at lower altitudes.

Afghan leaders say Taliban infiltrators are responsible for most insider attacks. U.S. officials say the attacks are largely rooted in personal feuds between Afghan and coalition troops, though not necessarily the result of cultural insensitivity.

Last year, the U.S.-led coalition rejected an internal military study that concluded that cultural insensitivity was in part to blame for insider killings, which it called a growing threat that represented "a severe and rapidly metastasizing malignancy" for the coalition in Afghanistan.

Arghhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!

The draft handbook uses Maj. Bordin's conclusions to psychologically prepare troops for serving in Afghanistan. A summary includes views of some U.S. soldiers that Afghan forces engage in thievery, are "gutless in combat," are "basically stupid," "profoundly dishonest," and engage in "treasonous collusion and alliances with enemy forces."

The draft handbook offers a list of "taboo conversation topics" that soldiers should avoid, including "making derogatory comments about the Taliban," "advocating women's rights," "any criticism of pedophilia," "directing any criticism towards Afghans," "mentioning homosexuality and homosexual conduct" or "anything related to Islam."

I don't want to criticize the Military or anyone in uniform, so tell me I'm wrong! Am I just going crazy? We hurt the tender feelings of this folks so they kill us? That explanation just doesn't wash. That dog don't hunt. I think somebody in Leavenworth fell off a turnip truck...................bless their hearts.............

"He went on two legs, wore clothes and was a human being, but nevertheless he was in reality a wolf of the Steppes. He had learned a good deal . . . and was a fairly clever fellow. What he had not learned, however, was this: to find contentment in himself and his own life. The cause of this apparently was that at the bottom of his heart he knew all the time (or thought he knew) that he was in reality not a man, but a wolf of the Steppes."

We are not social worker,we are not peace keeps, Police or even aid workers. We are the wrecking crew we are not suppose to be used for anything other than beating the tar out of anyone that mess with the US. Not being nice . But any more that is not what we do and that is why we keeping getting in to these worthless situations they never end well for us.
Germany ,Japan when it was over it was over no problem end it end it quick or sty home .

I am at a loss to understand this, but it really irritates the nitswickenfrudenhaffen out of me. Am I wrong? Is this stupid PC and I should scream? Is this analogous to blaming the rape victim for their carriage or deportment?

I would like to hear what the great folks here think of the premise of the Draft Handbook.

Some of this just reads like some type of freshman level "Alternative Dispute Resolution" bologna spewed by some pot-smoking teary eyed moron born on the dark side of the moon. I swear, I shall weep.

I am just beside myself about this, and have been consumed about this issue all day while at lower altitudes.

Arghhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!

I don't want to criticize the Military or anyone in uniform, so tell me I'm wrong! Am I just going crazy? We hurt the tender feelings of this folks so they kill us? That explanation just doesn't wash. That dog don't hunt. I think somebody in Leavenworth fell off a turnip truck...................bless their hearts.............

Just like we disrespect some kid asking for a cigarette here and they shoot us. Our people are strangers in a strange land dealing with a culture and values that were old before our little old country even existed. Just because some of the people over there want us there does not mean they all do. If we show less respect for their traditions and values than the Taliban did why should we expect them to support us? Because we are liberating them from someone that a significant portion of the population did not want to be liberated from? How would we have reacted to Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas "liberating" us from the Reagan Administration?

Originally Posted by Smitty901

We are not social worker,we are not peace keeps, Police or even aid workers. We are the wrecking crew we are not suppose to be used for anything other than beating the tar out of anyone that mess with the US. Not being nice . But any more that is not what we do and that is why we keeping getting in to these worthless situations they never end well for us.
Germany ,Japan when it was over it was over no problem end it end it quick or sty home .

Reality check time folks. As Clasuewitz said war is diplomacy by other means. Our men and women in uniform are commodities to be expended by the administration in the pursuit of our foreign policy. That was made very clear to me before I enlisted back in the Reagan days.

Originally Posted by OldVet

The military lost its direction when its primary mission became to "win the hearts and mind of the enemy" instead of killing them--and that happened way long ago.

Originally Posted by Bullet1234

VERY WELL SAID,,,, that LIBERAL CRAP will never work

Unconventional warfare is LIBERAL CRAP? You guys don't see any value to building relationships with indiginous peoples so that they might take care of their little corner of the world so we don't have to? If we had done this nation building stuff twenty some years ago after we had them blow their own country up in our proxy war with the Soviets the Taliban most likely would not have come to power. No Taliban would have meant no training bases for Al Qaeda. Instead we left it to Pakistan (where was OBL eventually found?) and Saudi Arabia (where were most of the 9/11 hijackers from?) and we have now spent how much blood and treasure there?
How well in your opinion did that work out for us?

Originally Posted by OD*

I agree with the handbook completely, I certainly wouldn't want to offend anyone be for I killed them.

Nothing wrong with offending those you kill, as long as you kill all of those you offend. Our guys relieve themselves on the corpses of their fighters and they drag the bodies of ours through the streets and hang them by their ankles. Fair is fair. As long as you kill them all there is no one to retalliate. The problem is the ones we offend but don't kill might be offended enough to do unto us as we have done unto them.

My emphasis on the Draft Handbook was the focus that appears to be inward looking rather than outward. Having no military experience, it is difficult for me to make any absolute judgment, however, I can analyze and interpret and study and thereafter form my own opinion.

The fact that Gen. Allen has opined in the manner he has, shows that Leavenworth has a severe disconnect with field operations. That is and should be disconcerting in and off itself, which is why I wrote the OP, to solicit opinions herein. Having said that, I do respect it is a complex matter with several parameters far to complex to discuss herein.

While I understand COIN as a layman, and some other aspects of this matter, it is disturbing that this focuses on our behavior ("blame the victim") rather than identifying and eliminating the threats. There was another OP on an article "Inside the Wire", to compare and contrast.

"He went on two legs, wore clothes and was a human being, but nevertheless he was in reality a wolf of the Steppes. He had learned a good deal . . . and was a fairly clever fellow. What he had not learned, however, was this: to find contentment in himself and his own life. The cause of this apparently was that at the bottom of his heart he knew all the time (or thought he knew) that he was in reality not a man, but a wolf of the Steppes."

The only cultural issues that need be understood are for the basis of knowing ones enemy. The style that we have taken since every war since WWII has been this, befriend the locals, work with them and help them fight the war we want won but no part of. It sickens me. To me this is weakness. It is dangerous to our troops and it is, as you said R&G much like blaming the victim or an inanimate object. You above me are all right, especially OldVet. Gone are the good old days of "We do what is right because it is right, and if you do not agree then you are wrong"

We shouldered a great responsibility being the "police power" of the world, a long time ago, right, wrong or otherwise, and it has been shown that we now shirk that responsibility. While I am not at a loss for words my blood is boiling more now than when I read it. I have no personal military history but many friends and relatives who do and coming from my experiences with them I can whole heartedly believe that this is utter crap.

Last edited by BigJon10125; December 12th, 2012 at 10:55 AM.
Reason: Too heated to spell correctly!!!

My emphasis on the Draft Handbook was the focus that appears to be inward looking rather than outward. Having no military experience, it is difficult for me to make any absolute judgment, however, I can analyze and interpret and study and thereafter form my own opinion.

The fact that Gen. Allen has opined in the manner he has, shows that Leavenworth has a severe disconnect with field operations. That is and should be disconcerting in and off itself, which is why I wrote the OP, to solicit opinions herein. Having said that, I do respect it is a complex matter with several parameters far to complex to discuss herein.

This assumes it is not Gen. Allen that is suffering the disconnect does it not? I have friends currently serving (over there and back here now) that previously were at Leavenworth working on stuff like this. These papers are not written in a vacuum. They are written by guys who have been there, done that, in the area they are writing about. They are based on their personal experiences and investigations and when possible detailed interviews with the people directly involved in the incidents they are studying.

While I understand COIN as a layman, and some other aspects of this matter, it is disturbing that this focuses on our behavior ("blame the victim") rather than identifying and eliminating the threats. There was another OP on an article "Inside the Wire", to compare and contrast.

So if this was a problem with ongoing explosions at a fireworks plant should we only bother to identify the powders involved or maybe what we were doing that might have caused the explosions? If there was a patern of our guys not following safe practices (grounding themselves) that consistently were involved in the incidents in question and we identified them would we be "blaming the victim"? Should we continue on with business as usual or tell our people that if they continue to ignore these grounding procedures they will run a much higher chance of getting blown up?

In that situation is the threat the powder (which is what is blowing up) or the static electricity that is igniting it? Is identifying the behavior (failing to ground) that allows the static to exist (and cause the explosion) "blaming the victim"? And if the victim did in fact cause the explosion what is wrong with "blaming the victim"?

How about instead of "the threat" having to be a human being we identified "the threat" as a set of circumstances?